That's a bit silly, don't you think? You are basically saying that we can eat all the carbs in the world, and everything is just magically burned? Nothing goes to fat cells. Only dietary fat goes to fat cells, carbs just raise the insulin and burn? Golly. Weren't you the guy who touted for calories in - calories out?

Quote:

Do some research on how efficient DNL is in humans - we suck at it, basically.

I did this morning actually, since the topic caught my interest. There are quite a lot of inconclusive and contradictive research available off the subject. Some sources claim it's a relatively small function (like 4% of our BF or so), some studies find a bigger role from it. But it does exist, and it's not highly unlikely. Here's one study (Oh yeah, I'm picking the one that suits my view) http://www.ajcn.org/content/48/2/240.full.pdf. It had people do a high-fat moderate protein diet to empty our glucose storages, followed by huge carbo loading phase. What happened was that fat was gained, and plenty. Maybe some from dietary fat, but not all of it. Here's a snappy picture:

The more I researched, the more I came to be inconclusive about the issue. Lipogenesis is a real thing, it does have an effect however. No studies have denied that. It's the amount of DNL that is happening that's still a bit in the shadows for me. But saying it's highly unlikely is a bit rough to my ears.

Quote:

It's that the carb intake 100% stops fat oxidation that causes us to gain weight (all the fat we eat, stored as fat.)

I'm still not buying this. Sure, it's true, there's no doubt that insulin and other silly hormones have that kind of main function. BUT, I think we shouldn't totally exclude dietary carbo control. Carbs are also participating in fat storaging process, as glucose is used to form triglycerols. Glucose is burned to get glycerol phosphate, which is needed to create TAG. Hence = More carbs = more fat. BUT, I'm aware that this process isn't exactly the point you are trying to imply. Just wanted to mention it as well. Carbs do participate in fat gains more than just hormonally.

Quote:

Protein also has to be converted to glucose and then fat before it can be stored.

And that is also more than possible. You can eat too much of everything. Glucose can be turned into fat, and Carbs and protein are, for what I know, quite easily worked into glucose.

I think it's interesting. That chart of Dub's is interesting. It looks like 500g of carbs are being burned each day. Of course it doesn't say anything about the calorie demand or the contribution from other macronutrients.

I like cases where there are more questions than answers. That's when science is done.

_________________Stu Ward_________________Let thy food be thy medicine, and thy medicine be thy food.~HippocratesStrength is the adaptation that leads to all other adaptations that you really care about - Charles Staley_________________Thanks TimD

I like cases where there are more questions than answers. That's when science is done.

It's also very frurstrating at some points. I've been on a interest driven quest to dig deeper into exercise-related nutrition, meal frequencies and hormonal actions and similar. AND what I've usually found raised almost ten new questions, leading to search more, leading to more complicated issues, and providing no help for the question I started with. But I'll get through, it's most likely way more than just a weeks journey tho. I've started to lean more and more on actual researches instead of articles, and I'm actually reading and saving several researches and studies. Some of the science is overwhelming, but it comes clearer every day.

I like cases where there are more questions than answers. That's when science is done.

It's also very frurstrating at some points. I've been on a interest driven quest to dig deeper into exercise-related nutrition, meal frequencies and hormonal actions and similar. AND what I've usually found raised almost ten new questions, leading to search more, leading to more complicated issues, and providing no help for the question I started with. But I'll get through, it's most likely way more than just a weeks journey tho. I've started to lean more and more on actual researches instead of articles, and I'm actually reading and saving several researches and studies. Some of the science is overwhelming, but it comes clearer every day.

Make sure you get some academic credit for this. Learning is good for it's own sake, but it's so much better if you can leverage it to meet other goals at the same time.

_________________Stu Ward_________________Let thy food be thy medicine, and thy medicine be thy food.~HippocratesStrength is the adaptation that leads to all other adaptations that you really care about - Charles Staley_________________Thanks TimD

One major flaw with this is the liver. The liver converts the sugars derived from carbs into triglycerides, which are easily stored as fat. That doesn't happen if you aren't eating a lot of carbs at one time, but if you are, it does. This effect increases for people who are progressing towards a prediabetic condition.

So what Nightfall posted is true in one circumstance and false in another. The problem is it is usually false in a higher carb diet where one typically takes in more carbs than they can use at one time.

If you are going to run 20 miles then you would benefit from eating a lot of complex carbs beforehand. That is not the case if you were going to get on the treadmill and jog for 30 minutes and then sit on your ass all day. A typical exerciser and an athlete just are not the same at all.

As for extreme caloric deficit, the same effect is observed by not eating processed foods. In order to properly prove there is anything to it, they need to have people eating exactly the same, and show the result only in, or at least to a greater extent in the group eating less. If only to a greater extent, then total quantities of processed food need to be the same and NOT the ratio. Better yet they should eat nothing but whole foods.

That's a bit silly, don't you think? You are basically saying that we can eat all the carbs in the world, and everything is just magically burned? Nothing goes to fat cells. Only dietary fat goes to fat cells, carbs just raise the insulin and burn? Golly. Weren't you the guy who touted for calories in - calories out?

Quote:

Do some research on how efficient DNL is in humans - we suck at it, basically.

I did this morning actually, since the topic caught my interest. There are quite a lot of inconclusive and contradictive research available off the subject. Some sources claim it's a relatively small function (like 4% of our BF or so), some studies find a bigger role from it. But it does exist, and it's not highly unlikely. Here's one study (Oh yeah, I'm picking the one that suits my view) http://www.ajcn.org/content/48/2/240.full.pdf. It had people do a high-fat moderate protein diet to empty our glucose storages, followed by huge carbo loading phase. What happened was that fat was gained, and plenty. Maybe some from dietary fat, but not all of it. Here's a snappy picture:

The more I researched, the more I came to be inconclusive about the issue. Lipogenesis is a real thing, it does have an effect however. No studies have denied that. It's the amount of DNL that is happening that's still a bit in the shadows for me. But saying it's highly unlikely is a bit rough to my ears.

Quote:

It's that the carb intake 100% stops fat oxidation that causes us to gain weight (all the fat we eat, stored as fat.)

I'm still not buying this. Sure, it's true, there's no doubt that insulin and other silly hormones have that kind of main function. BUT, I think we shouldn't totally exclude dietary carbo control. Carbs are also participating in fat storaging process, as glucose is used to form triglycerols. Glucose is burned to get glycerol phosphate, which is needed to create TAG. Hence = More carbs = more fat. BUT, I'm aware that this process isn't exactly the point you are trying to imply. Just wanted to mention it as well. Carbs do participate in fat gains more than just hormonally.

Quote:

Protein also has to be converted to glucose and then fat before it can be stored.

And that is also more than possible. You can eat too much of everything. Glucose can be turned into fat, and Carbs and protein are, for what I know, quite easily worked into glucose.

Let me rephrase what I was saying - as i never said it was impossible, I just said that it was highly unlikely.

The fat that's gained from increased carb intake is usually a factor of dietary fat being stored due to fat oxidation coming to a halt.

Also, you can clearly see in that diagram that DNL doesn't occur much until consistently eating 500+ grams of carbs a day for over a week straight.

Obviously, I wouldn't recommend anyone eating that many carbs.

The point I was making is this, as this thread is all over the place at the moment:

Dietary fat is the macro most easily stored as fat - it's that simple, our body has no problem storing it as fat.

Carbohydrates are RARELY stored as fat unless extremely large amounts are eaten (ie, 500+ grams a day). If you eat excess calories, more than likely it's the dietary fat that is actually stored if you're eating moderate carbs. Does it matter which macro is being stored? Not really, it's still eating calories over maintenance that cause it.

Protein is also nearly never stored as fat - in cases of overeating, fat/carbs are always the first choice to be stored as fat. Gluconeogesis I'm pretty sure is non-existent when in a surplus of calories, I'm fairly certain that protein oxidation just increases similar to the way that carb oxidation does when it's ingested. Funny enough, excess dietary fat does nothing to increase fat oxidation.

Just to clarify, also - I don't think anyone needs to be eating more than 300-400g of carbs a day maximum unless you're a marathon runner.

I'm all for restricting carbs to reduce weight - I just think the idea that carbs are the REASON we get fat is a little off base. The reason we get fat is because we eat too much and move to little, it's not the fault of a single macronutrient.

Just to clarify, also - I don't think anyone needs to be eating more than 300-400g of carbs a day maximum unless you're a marathon runner.

I'm all for restricting carbs to reduce weight - I just think the idea that carbs are the REASON we get fat is a little off base. The reason we get fat is because we eat too much and move to little, it's not the fault of a single macronutrient.

The prevalent advice over the last 40 years was to increase carbs and decrease fat consumption. Farm subsidies have created a situation where carbs, especially from corn, and wheat, are very cheap. Therefore people with limited incomes eat more carbs than the more wealthy. Whether this is the cause or not, you can easily see the association between the high carb advice on obesity, especially among the poor. Most obese people do not limit themselves to 3-400 g/day. In all likelihood, carbs ARE the reason people get fat.

"The reason we get fat is because we eat too much and move to little". You have to ask "why do people eat to much" and "why do the move too little". The answer may be that it's because they are getting fat. The causality may be backwards.

_________________Stu Ward_________________Let thy food be thy medicine, and thy medicine be thy food.~HippocratesStrength is the adaptation that leads to all other adaptations that you really care about - Charles Staley_________________Thanks TimD

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum